| 1 |
On 21 April 2016 at 06:38, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well so far the only needs I have run into for the win32 flag has |
| 3 |
> been in relation to choosing UI toolkit support for cairo and gtk+ |
| 4 |
> (and possibly others in the future), which is why I saw the parallel. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Given you're not using the flag to indicate "works on win32" as such, |
| 8 |
but instead "compile using Win32 Widgets instead of something else", |
| 9 |
wouldn't a better name indicate that somehow? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The simplest thing I can think of that clears this confusion is a few |
| 12 |
extra characters: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"win32gui", "win32ui" |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Or something along those lines. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It doesn't require us to know what the exact binding keywords in |
| 19 |
microsoft terminology is used, and it clearly communicates "This is |
| 20 |
something to do with User Interfaces" as opposed to "Just |
| 21 |
linking/compiling slightly differently". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Kent |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives